GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 574
From: Richmond, TX
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by GN1270
http://www.300cforums.com/forums/srt...k-srt-8-a.html
Bone stock Chrysler 300 run 12.6's with video of run, and video of his engine, exhaust, etc that it is bone stock. The bottom line of this post. Where is the bone stock 435lb lighter GTO's running these numbers?
THe base price of a Charger SRT-8 is right around $35k There was a window sticker on Ebay.
What did the 04 GTO cost at a dealership when they first came out? Not a good argument to use since you all use the dealer mark up as to why the sales were a flop. Remember, its not always a good thing when your car is a blue light special. I was going to get an 04 GTO, but when GM went to 0% on Vettes you could buy a new base Corvette and have a cheaper payment. What are 2 more doors, a ton more cabin space, 25 more HP, 14.2mm Brembo brakes, 20" wheels, Goodyear eagle f1 supercar rubber
I can admit I may have been wrong on the V's having torque mgmt (did not know the C-5 Z06's had it), but either way GM has to race what it brung and in this case it did not bring enough for the SRT-8 line up.
I thought this all seemed farmiliar, It was the same damn thing back in 1985 when the 86 Buick Grand National came out and how that big luxury boat was faster than a Vette and the Vette guys could not handle it.
I'm past my 60 mile break in period. THe owners manual says to floor it periodically after 60 miles so I can go at any time.
Bone stock Chrysler 300 run 12.6's with video of run, and video of his engine, exhaust, etc that it is bone stock. The bottom line of this post. Where is the bone stock 435lb lighter GTO's running these numbers?
THe base price of a Charger SRT-8 is right around $35k There was a window sticker on Ebay.
What did the 04 GTO cost at a dealership when they first came out? Not a good argument to use since you all use the dealer mark up as to why the sales were a flop. Remember, its not always a good thing when your car is a blue light special. I was going to get an 04 GTO, but when GM went to 0% on Vettes you could buy a new base Corvette and have a cheaper payment. What are 2 more doors, a ton more cabin space, 25 more HP, 14.2mm Brembo brakes, 20" wheels, Goodyear eagle f1 supercar rubber
I can admit I may have been wrong on the V's having torque mgmt (did not know the C-5 Z06's had it), but either way GM has to race what it brung and in this case it did not bring enough for the SRT-8 line up.
I thought this all seemed farmiliar, It was the same damn thing back in 1985 when the 86 Buick Grand National came out and how that big luxury boat was faster than a Vette and the Vette guys could not handle it.
I'm past my 60 mile break in period. THe owners manual says to floor it periodically after 60 miles so I can go at any time.
So get your boat out to a different track and reproduce the 12.60 run at over 110 and I'll be down at a Dodge dealership by the end of the year.
And your right on the GN analogy. Forget the GTO, it looks like this thing will outrun the C6.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Forget the GTO, it looks like this thing will outrun the C6.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by BigBlueCruiser
And your right on the GN analogy. Forget the GTO, it looks like this thing will outrun the C6.
It is a few ticks slower, but pretty close to what I have seen claimed for bone stock C6s.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 574
From: Richmond, TX
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by BigDarknFast
LOL! Do you realize the C6 has a ONE THOUSAND pound weight advantage? It would take massive HP in the SRT8, to overcome that. If the power is that good and underrated... you'll soon see a lot of gripes on the Mopar boards about their MPG being dismal
12.60@111 is faster than a bone stock C6.
Mileage shouldn't surprise anyone 14/21 = $2100 GGT.
***edit i just priced one out on edmunds and came out to $39xxx for a relative stripper. Just the premium stereo and sideairbags. For that change I'll get the GT500.
Last edited by BigBlueCruiser; Nov 23, 2005 at 01:02 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by muckz
We just devoted entire 6 pages to the fact that SRT8 is substantially quicker than the GTO. 
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by BigDarknFast
And speaking of four doors, if anything goes (so far that seems to be the case 
) then why not compare the SRT8 with a Chevy Trailblazer SS? They start at a street price below $30k, with 400HP... four doors... you can even get AWD...
) then why not compare the SRT8 with a Chevy Trailblazer SS? They start at a street price below $30k, with 400HP... four doors... you can even get AWD... From what I've read, the TBSS is a few hundred pounds heavier, yet a little faster than the Magnum RT and a little slower than the SRT8. A bit more dear than the Magnum RT and a bit less dear than the SRT8. It presumably has more cargo space but doesn't handle as well.
If I'm shopping for a roomy vehicle that runs 14s or better, the TBSS is on the list.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by muckz
In my LT1 Z28 I ran premium octane (91) and then added octane booster. Made a difference of 1 mph, consistently.
Could be attributed to the possibility that it ran retarded timing even on 91 octane, but switched to premium timing for the boosted fuel.
Yet the fact remains - there is something to be gained from going to higher octane fuel.
Could be attributed to the possibility that it ran retarded timing even on 91 octane, but switched to premium timing for the boosted fuel.
Yet the fact remains - there is something to be gained from going to higher octane fuel.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by BigBlueCruiser
Well part of the skepticism is over the track, ATCO. I'm hearing it's a freak track downhill and short by a few feet.
So get your boat out to a different track and reproduce the 12.60 run at over 110 and I'll be down at a Dodge dealership by the end of the year.
And your right on the GN analogy. Forget the GTO, it looks like this thing will outrun the C6.
So get your boat out to a different track and reproduce the 12.60 run at over 110 and I'll be down at a Dodge dealership by the end of the year.
And your right on the GN analogy. Forget the GTO, it looks like this thing will outrun the C6.
I have heard of C6 vettes running 12.6 from the factory though. It is not the norm though.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 361
From: Connecticut
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
From what I am hearing they are meeting at the Atco tomorrow (GTO and SRT-8 owners).
Oh, here is the R&T comparison that they called too close to call between the GTO and Charger SRT-8. While the 1/4 may be close, look at the mph's and look at the 0-100mph. Sorry boys, the SRT-8's are faster.
List price $35,320 $32,295
Price as tested $43,805 $33,690
Curb weight 4280 lb 3790 lb
Engine, transmission 6.1L V-8, 5-speed automatic 6.0L V-8, 6-speed manual
Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 425 @ 6200 400 @ 5200
0-60 mph 4.9 sec 5.2 sec
0-100 mph 11.5 sec 12.7 sec
0-1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.3 sec @ 108.2 mph 13.7 sec @ 103.9 mph
Top speed est 165 mph 159 mph*
Braking from 60 mph 122 ft 124 ft
Braking from 80 mph 215 ft 221 ft
Skidpad 0.87g 0.84g
Slalom 64.1 mph 62.9 mph
Fuel mileage 13.5 mpg 14.2 mpg
Oh, here is the R&T comparison that they called too close to call between the GTO and Charger SRT-8. While the 1/4 may be close, look at the mph's and look at the 0-100mph. Sorry boys, the SRT-8's are faster.
List price $35,320 $32,295
Price as tested $43,805 $33,690
Curb weight 4280 lb 3790 lb
Engine, transmission 6.1L V-8, 5-speed automatic 6.0L V-8, 6-speed manual
Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 425 @ 6200 400 @ 5200
0-60 mph 4.9 sec 5.2 sec
0-100 mph 11.5 sec 12.7 sec
0-1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.3 sec @ 108.2 mph 13.7 sec @ 103.9 mph
Top speed est 165 mph 159 mph*
Braking from 60 mph 122 ft 124 ft
Braking from 80 mph 215 ft 221 ft
Skidpad 0.87g 0.84g
Slalom 64.1 mph 62.9 mph
Fuel mileage 13.5 mpg 14.2 mpg
Last edited by GN1270; Nov 25, 2005 at 09:18 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,030
From: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
And for comparision purposes here is Motor Trends #s
................GTO/SRT8
0 to 60........4.7/5.0
0 to 100......11.7/11.9
1/4mile...13.3@105/13.5@106
weight...3777lbs./4266lbs.
weight to power...9.4lb/hp / 10.0lb/hp
axle ratio...3.46/3.06
................GTO/SRT8
0 to 60........4.7/5.0
0 to 100......11.7/11.9
1/4mile...13.3@105/13.5@106
weight...3777lbs./4266lbs.
weight to power...9.4lb/hp / 10.0lb/hp
axle ratio...3.46/3.06
Last edited by 30thZ286speed; Nov 25, 2005 at 12:36 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Gotta love it!
The MT GTO was faster than the R&T GTO, but the MT SRT8 was slower than the R&T SRT8. This makes bench racing really hard
I wonder how many break in miles each one had? Another variable to consider for magazine times.
Speaking of magazine times, has anyone noticed how much variation there is for the Mitsu Evolution and the Subaru WRX STI? About a second and 6 mph between fast and slow, sometimes even with the same magazine.
The MT GTO was faster than the R&T GTO, but the MT SRT8 was slower than the R&T SRT8. This makes bench racing really hard
I wonder how many break in miles each one had? Another variable to consider for magazine times.
Speaking of magazine times, has anyone noticed how much variation there is for the Mitsu Evolution and the Subaru WRX STI? About a second and 6 mph between fast and slow, sometimes even with the same magazine.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 361
From: Connecticut
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Mototr trends numbers look more like the 340hp version af the charger. Was that test done in 95 degree heat?
Oh yea, the SRT-8's also have torque mgmt. I am hearing it can be disabled simply by pulling a fuse, but that it only promotes tire spin and doesn't help the times.
Oh yea, the SRT-8's also have torque mgmt. I am hearing it can be disabled simply by pulling a fuse, but that it only promotes tire spin and doesn't help the times.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 171
From: New Lenox, IL
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by teal98
Gotta love it!
The MT GTO was faster than the R&T GTO, but the MT SRT8 was slower than the R&T SRT8. This makes bench racing really hard
The MT GTO was faster than the R&T GTO, but the MT SRT8 was slower than the R&T SRT8. This makes bench racing really hard
Trapspeed from both tests shows a better power/weight ratio for the SRT8.
Mike
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by GN1270
Oh yea, the SRT-8's also have torque mgmt. I am hearing it can be disabled simply by pulling a fuse, but that it only promotes tire spin and doesn't help the times.
Originally Posted by teal98
Gotta love it!
The MT GTO was faster than the R&T GTO, but the MT SRT8 was slower than the R&T SRT8. This makes bench racing really hard
The MT GTO was faster than the R&T GTO, but the MT SRT8 was slower than the R&T SRT8. This makes bench racing really hard
Just goes to show that the cars are more than likely a toss up against one another, in most situations.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Re: GTO vs Charger SRT-8
SRT8 has:
bigger footprint, 20" wheels to optional 18's on GTO
25 more hp, 20 more lbft
450 lbs heavier
aerodynamic disadvantage
2 tenths slower, aprox 2 cars.....sounds about right.
(You know the new GTO is about 600 lbs heavier than pre-1967 ones.)
1964, 3122 lbs, 389 Tri-Power, 348bhp/428lbft, 14.1@104.2, on 6" bias plys...notice trap speed.
bigger footprint, 20" wheels to optional 18's on GTO
25 more hp, 20 more lbft
450 lbs heavier
aerodynamic disadvantage
2 tenths slower, aprox 2 cars.....sounds about right.
(You know the new GTO is about 600 lbs heavier than pre-1967 ones.)
1964, 3122 lbs, 389 Tri-Power, 348bhp/428lbft, 14.1@104.2, on 6" bias plys...notice trap speed.
Last edited by 90rocz; Nov 26, 2005 at 12:30 AM.